Trentonian editorial: Mitt 1, Prez O

Gov. Christie was right. We were wrong. Christie said Mitt Romney would kick President Obama’s butt in the debate, and we ridiculed the notion. Well, in a virtually unanimous decision — even rabid Obama backers pretty much agree — Romney kicked Obama’s butt all over the place.

A presidential debate is not an athletic contest, so nobody actually “wins.” Nevertheless — Romney won. We’ll see what effect if any his performance had on the polls. But it certainly changed the news media narrative of late that the wheels are flying off the Romney campaign and Obama’s reelection is a mere formality.

It was not that Obama did badly. He was his unflustered, cool, intelligent self. He made no gaffes, no missteps. It was just that Romney’s performance was much superior. Romney was a commanding presence, more energetic, more poised, making his points clearly and parrying Obama’s deftly. Romney looked like he was enjoying himself. Obama looked like he was thinking, “When is this going to be over with?”

It’s the nature of these debates that the incumbent is at a disadvantage. Unavoidably, the incumbent has a record to defend and is pressed to play defense from the outset. Romney exploited this natural advantage more devastatingly than any (excepting Gov. Christie) expected. Another natural advantage for Romney: He’s had a long exhibition season (the primary) to work out the kinks and tweak his game. Obama, meanwhile, has been occupied with the world’s most demanding job, being president.

Advertisement

Both were impressive in their command of wonkish data to make their case and critique the opponent’s. Here’s another thing more important than winners and losers: Both comported themselves with dignity that did the nation — and politics, no less! — proud. There were sharp exchanges but no cheap-shot sniping and no scripted “zingers.” It was encouraging, uplifting even, to see both candidates’ and their families mingling briefly on stage after the debate and not standing apart in their two separate little hostile camps, as has usually been the case in past presidential debates. Hopefully, this trend of civility will continue, although don’t bank on it just yet.

Romney did the better job of clearly illustrating his points and avoiding eye-glazing gobbledegook. Obama on occasion succumbed to eye-glazing gobbledegook. Romney for the first time did a masterful job defending “RomneyCare,” which he instituted as governor of Massachusetts, and distinguishing it from its federal offsring, “ObamaCare.” He used RomneyCare to make the case that he can work with the opposing party to get something accomplished.

Obama astutely suggested that Romney’s math doesn’t add up, noting that big military spending hikes aren’t easily reconciled with reducing deficits (a point, ahem, we’ve made here ourselves). The two candidacies come down to this: Obama views the federal government as an enforcer of a liberal vision of “justice” and “fairness.” Romney views the federal government as a referee who throws the penalty flag when necessary but otherwise stays out of the game, much as the debate moderator, PBS’ Jim Lehrer, wisely did.